Joan Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance homes, because 27 per cent. of our emissions come from our homes. The Homes and Communities Agency was set up and began operations only in December last year, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is leading the way on making the zero-carbon homes agenda, which is our target for 2016, a reality. It is also leading with exemplar programmes like the carbon challenge and the Thames Gateway eco region. Over the years, the decent homes programme has brought a million homes up to decent standard, which the result that higher energy-efficiency standards exist in the public sector than in the private sector. Over the next three years, the Homes and Communities Agency will manage £2.4 billion worth of programmes to ensure that 350,000 homes are brought up to the decent home standard. I can assure my hon. Friend that the agency is committed, and that contact between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government is ongoing and specifically directed at reducing carbon emissions.

Gregory Barker: While our European competitors such as Germany are rolling out far larger energy efficiency programmes, progress here is still too slow. Indeed, the Government have now cancelled the launch of their heat and energy-saving consultation for the second time. Given the sad failure to transform the energy efficiency of our housing stock over the last decade, may I invite the Secretary of State to borrow yet another ambitious Conservative policy and offer all home-owners a £6,500 entitlement to energy retrofit their homes, thus creating real efficiency, real savings and real green jobs?

Edward Miliband: I shall meet the right hon. Gentleman with pleasure to discuss his private Member's Bill.
	Lord Turner's recommendations in his report published in December represent an important step forward in the ways in which we can drive carbon capture and storage into any new coal fired power stations. We are examining those recommendations carefully, and will say more about them in the next few weeks.

David Taylor: Computers have been around for 60 years, for goodness sake. Departments are required to answer questions accurately, promptly and truthfully, but their performance is often deplorable, as I know from my protracted attempts over the past year to extract information about the recording of hospitality for senior civil servants. Does my hon. Friend support my recommendation that Secretaries of State should have their salaries reduced by, say, 5 per cent. for every day over the two-week target that their Departments take to answer the average written question?

Chris Bryant: I am not sure that I can entirely support my hon. Friend in that suggestion—though perhaps if all Secretaries of State were paid the same as Deputy Leaders of the House that would be an interesting point. The important point that I think he is trying to make is that every Department should answer questions promptly, fully and without any form of obfuscation, and I want to ensure that that is what they do.

Peter Bone: The Deputy Leader of the House is being unusually intransparent—if that is a word; I like to make things up— untransparent. [Hon. Members: "Opaque."] Indeed. Anyway, the point that I am making is that it is beyond belief that an average could not be worked out by taking a sample of questions. My view is that the Government are hiding something. Does he agree?

Chris Bryant: The shadow Deputy Leader of the House takes a keen interest in what happens before Prorogation. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I wrote to Ministers before Prorogation to try to ensure that, if anyone was thinking of using such a device to get out of answering a question, they should not do so. Perhaps my letter was sent a little late, and this year, we will try to make a better fist of this.

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. Yesterday evening, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) raised a point of order in which he reported that police had entered his office without permission and demanded that he release to them correspondence from his constituency. The House authorities have looked into the matter. I can tell the House that the case concerned general inquiries in the course of an investigation into a serious crime that may involve threatening behaviour towards Members and other public figures. It did not involve the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham or his staff.
	In the course of the investigation, a police officer assigned to duties in the House, but exercising her responsibilities as a constable, sought assistance from the staff of the hon. Member and agreed a time to meet them. Assistance was given by the hon. Member's staff after the officer had explained the nature of the inquiry. At a point in their discussion, the hon. Member was contacted by his staff because it was thought necessary to seek his permission for the police to obtain a single-sheet document from his office. The purpose of the investigation was explained to the hon. Member, and after discussion, he agreed to supply the document.  [Interruption.] Order.
	I can confirm to the House that at no time during those proceedings did the police exercise any compulsory powers to require the document to be supplied. The hon. Member and his staff were not the subject of the police inquiry. It was not a matter that involved the seeking of a search warrant. I can confirm that the document is not privileged, but for reasons related to the sensitivity of the police investigation, I make no further comment about the details of the case.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was made aware of these details by the police. While I accept that, in this case, the police officer acted with good intentions, I have instructed that any police officer assigned to duties in the House must advise the Serjeant at Arms of the intention to seek the assistance of a Member and his staff in his offices. The Serjeant at Arms will in turn approach the Member before the police take further action. I shall, of course, keep the House informed of any details concerning the case insofar as it affects the privileges of the House.

Alan Duncan: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 26 January—Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
	Tuesday 27 January—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Wednesday 28 January—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a full day's debate on an Opposition motion about the Government's proposals for Heathrow.
	Thursday 29 January—Topical debate: Holocaust memorial day, followed by a general debate on armed forces personnel.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 2 February will include:
	Monday 2 February—Remaining stages of the Political Parties and Elections Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 3 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Wednesday 4 February—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 5 February—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on food safety.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for February 5 and 12 will be:
	Thursday 5 February—A debate on the report from the Justice Committee entitled "Towards Effective Sentencing".
	Thursday 12 February—A debate on the report from the Transport Committee entitled "Delivering a Sustainable Railway: A 30-year Strategy for the Railways".

Harriet Harman: I warmly welcome the shadow Leader of the House to his new position and pay tribute to the work done by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I agree with his enunciation of the principles that he is going to stand by as shadow Leader of the House, and I look forward to working with him on them.
	The hon. Gentleman welcomed the fact that we have chosen Holocaust memorial day as the subject of next week's topical debate. Last year's debate was one of the best attended, most heartfelt and important topical debates on a Thursday that we have had. As the fallout from Gaza affects all communities in this country and everybody has heartfelt concern about it, on Holocaust memorial day we will particularly reflect on the increased anti-Semitic attacks that there have been on the Jewish community and synagogues in this country. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the Holocaust memorial day topical debate. Any time that he wants to suggest a topical debate, I would be more than happy to hear his suggestions. That is an offer that I made to him when we met privately at his request. I was very grateful to him for offering me a man-to-man chat, and I am happy to have one of those chats with him on any occasion.
	On freedom of information, we have had no change of heart. We want there to be clear rules, robust audit and proper transparency so that the public can know how much MPs spend and can have that information every year. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to get on his moral high ground against me on the question of transparency, because I have been perusing the transparency on his website. I have had trouble as Leader of the House with my own website, because somebody hacked into it and put all sorts of things on it which I had not said. I think that he has been having the same problem, because on his website—I am sure that he could not have written this himself—it says:
	"Alan Duncan has been a pivotal influence in the fortunes of the Conservative Party in Britain for well over ten years."
	I am sure that he will want to correct that. When it comes to transparency, he has been busy putting that sort of thing on his website but has failed to mention his financial interests in oil companies. I really do think that he should put his website where his mouth is.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of relations between India and the United Kingdom, and he made an important point. Our relations with India are important: it is a global player that is important to our economy. There are strong relations between the Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are close links between the communities of Indian origin in this country and those in India, as well as the important relations that the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office Ministers have. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion as the subject for a future topical debate.
	I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether we ought to have a debate on the question of the protection in place for flu epidemics.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the worrying issue of the rise in unemployment, and as the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, when someone becomes unemployed it is not only a devastating blow for them, but of concern to everyone, and it is of great concern to this House and the Government. That is why we have been determined to take action to recapitalise the banks, to fund loan guarantee scheme, to have a fiscal stimulus into the economy and to ensure that we bring forward capital infrastructure projects. We will never say, "Let the recession take its course", or that unemployment is a price worth paying. As far as the opportunity for the House to debate the economy is concerned, we are not backward in coming forward to ensure that it can debate the economy. Every week, we need to have substantive debates, statements and questions, and we make sure that that is the case.
	I shall conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman brings a dash of sartorial elegance to his Front-Bench team, who are otherwise sometimes a bit drab; drab he is not. On a personal note, I would just like to say that I really love his watch. I understand that he was given it by the Sultan of Oman. It is absolutely lovely. Also, I really like the cufflinks that he is wearing today; are those the ones that the Sultan gave him? They are absolutely great.

Harriet Harman: Of course statistics on crime are important. The Home Secretary has been holding discussions with the senior statisticians in her Department and the head of the independent national statistics organisation. We want to ensure that we get the figures absolutely right so that we can be as clear and open with people as possible about an issue of great concern to everyone. Let me reassure my right hon. Friend—I hope that what I am about to say is not also a matter for statistical discussion: the British crime survey, which asks people whether they have been a victim of crime, year after year shows people reporting that they are less likely to be a victim of crime. That is important.

Harriet Harman: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House about Equitable Life and answered questions on it for an hour last week. It is an important issue; it is important that those who need compensation most get it as swiftly as possible. The hon. Gentleman could recommend the subject to his Front Benchers for an Opposition day debate.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One aspect of the Planning Act 2008 was a community cohesion fund to put money back into the local community. One of the first big infrastructure projects that will probably come under the Act is the Hinckley Point nuclear power station. Both district councils for the area are concerned that the Government have provided no guidelines on the matter. May we have a debate about how the Act will work in future—it is a long-term measure—to ascertain how the community projects will be administered, who will look after them, who will be on the boards and what their remits will be?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps that could be the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in which my hon. Friend could set out there his suggestions about how to build on and take further the work that we have already done on this.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but he must understand that things are sometimes done in good faith—and the approach made by the police officer to the hon. Gentleman's staff was done in good faith. Other hon. Members have been put in a dangerous situation because of the particular investigation that is going on. I would ask that before hon. Members rush to points of order and make statements that can reflect badly on professional people who are doing a decent job of work, it would be better for them just to sit and wait for a while and get the facts together. That would have been the best thing, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's approach would have been different if had given himself a breather and thought about what was going on.

Kate Hoey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend now believe, on reflection, that it was not correct for anyone to try to secure an exemption through the Freedom of Information Act? Will she give a commitment that, while she is Leader of the House, no attempt will be made by Members of Parliament who passed the legislation on freedom of information to exempt themselves?

Tony Wright: It is easy to become confused about all the various bodies involved in this process. As my right hon. and learned Friend says, it is good and right and true that there is an independent element in the Members Estimate Audit Committee, but there is no such element in the Members Estimate Committee, nor will there be in the new Committee of the House whose establishment is proposed. The body that did advise on allowances and did have an independent element—the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances—is to be abolished. If we are to secure confidence in the system, is it not important for us to ensure that there is a robust, independent element in the procedures according to which we set the allowances?

Harriet Harman: It is right that there should be a robust, independent element, and the "full scope" NAO audit should provide bottom-line confidence in, and reassurance on, that. It has been involved in our deliberations on, and construction of, the rules that we have drawn up with the independent advisers on APMA. If we pass the motion, the NAO will henceforth be permanently involved in scrutinising the allowances and making sure they are paid out only in accordance with these rules.
	If we make APMA a Committee of this House, only Members of this House will be able to be members of that Committee; external, independent people will not be able to be full members of the Committee. The proposal is that those who have served so well as independent members of APMA will be advisers to the Committee on Members' Allowances. I can say that the CAM will have no Government Members on it. APMA had members of the Government on it, but the CAM will not have a Government Member on it, and nor will it have a Government majority—it will not be constructed as Select and Standing Committees are, with a Government majority. Therefore, I think we have the right level of independent input and the right reassurances for the future.

David Winnick: Like everyone else I am sure, I am very pleased there will be greater transparency, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that had we been foolish enough to have continued with the earlier attempt to exempt ourselves from the freedom of information legislation, there would inevitably have been a feeling that we were trying to hide various amounts? That would have undermined all the good work that is rightly being done to let the public know all the necessary information. Bearing in mind last year's attempt to exempt ourselves completely from the freedom of information legislation—the very law we passed for other people—can my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that there will be no attempt at any stage in the future to exempt ourselves from freedom of information legislation?

Harriet Harman: If, as I hope, we pass this motion on the publication scheme, every year the public will be able to see this information on every Member without there being any freedom of information request. As a matter of routine, information on what each Member has actually spent in any year will be brought forward and published, and broken down into 26 detailed categories.
	There is also a question to do with Freedom of Information Act requests—both those that have already been made and have not yet been complied with and also those that might be made in the future. The House authorities, the data holders, will decide, according to the law as it stands, what their obligations are in responding to those requests for information.

Harriet Harman: Precisely so. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) is a long-standing member of the Members Estimate Committee, to which I pay tribute. He rightly points out that the MEC has said that if it is fair for information to be given out in respect of one Member because somebody has requested it, the same information should be given out in respect of every Member. It is my understanding that nobody need worry that any Member will be left out, because the 180 Freedom of Information Act requests in the pipeline cover every Member of the House. We will decide the publication scheme and the House authorities will implement it. It is important that the public are able to see the information according to these categories.
	The other aspect is the request for receipts down to individual receipt level. I understand that 1.2 million such receipts have been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests. The House authorities have been scanning the receipts since last summer the receipts have been in the process of being scanned so that they can be disclosed. The scanning—a massive task—has not yet been completed, but it will be soon. Of course, the receipts have to be redacted before they are published. Before anybody thinks that there is any sort of cover up in relation to the redaction—redaction means crossing out things with a black felt tip pen or with the electronic equivalent—may I point out that the receipts contain information that it would not be right to put into the public domain? For example, an hon. Member might buy a ream of paper from a stationer's and at the same time purchase a Valentine's card. Of course they would pay for that themselves, but the receipt showing "purchased: one lurid Valentine's card" should not be put into the public domain. The claim for a ream of paper on the allowances, however, should be put into the public domain. Information about things that Members have paid for themselves must be crossed out on these receipts.
	Indeed, we identified that need when we saw the claims made by the hon. Member for North Devon. The House authorities gave us an example, from which we could see where he shopped—he is a man of regular habits—and how he paid, and at what time and on what day. That information need not be put into the public domain—unless one wants to meet him at one of his regular shopping venues. Intriguingly, we were also able to learn what shampoo and hair conditioner he buys; clearly he was not claiming those purchases on the parliamentary allowance, but they caught my eye when I saw the unredacted receipts. The serious point is that the House authorities have been hard at work making sure that the public are given the information to which they are entitled under the freedom of information provisions, but we must not tip into the public domain a load of personal and private information in respect of which no claim has been made.

Robert Flello: There is an even more serious point to make. Earlier, we heard a statement from Mr. Speaker about an investigation involving an hon. Member and some threats against hon. Members. If receipts contained the addresses of hon. Members' accommodation in London, releasing that information would pose a great threat to hon. Members of this House. Although the light-hearted points are good ones, the serious point is that some information could compromise the safety and security of hon. Members.

Harriet Harman: The House fully supported the freedom of information statutory instrument that we introduced last summer, and I am glad that no Minister at had made a grandiose commitment from the Dispatch Box never to provide any exemption; otherwise, we could not have introduced that statutory instrument providing an exemption for the sake of security, with which the House agreed.
	If I may, I want to discuss what I am introducing today. I am not introducing the statutory instrument on freedom of information, and I shall deal with that in my speech. If any hon. Member intends to ask that same question, perhaps they will desist, but I am happy to give way to hon. Members who want to ask a different question.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome the clear understanding that the Freedom of Information Act will be fully complied with in the release of material in the 26 categories. Does the Minister accept that that may require a further publication schedule and programme to ensure that redaction is consistent between hon. Members' releases of information, and that the issue is finalised with no further challenges to what has been put in the public domain and what has been redacted? All hon. Members must have an equal opportunity to release their material on the basis of a consistent programme of redaction, which should be based on a publications programme beyond the 26 categories that my right hon. Friend said will be in the public domain?

David Heath: What the right hon. and learned Lady has just said is of great interest. Many of us believe that if the scheme and the audit proposals had been in place three years ago, the matter would not have gone to the tribunal and the High Court, and we would not have the unholy mess that we now have. However, the fact is that the right hon. and learned Lady is proposing a scheme of publication that falls short of that full disclosure that the High Court has determined is correct—[Hon. Members: "It does not."] I am sorry, but it falls short of the full disclosure that the High Court has determined must be the case under the existing scheme. Is the right hon. and learned Lady suggesting that that should be tested again through the information tribunal and the courts, or does she plan to introduce an alternative scheme of full disclosure to full receipt level? If she intends to leave the matter where it is, and if someone makes an application, whether that goes to the tribunal and what the decision is will be left to fate.

Harriet Harman: I said that I did not want any more questions, but if they are like that one, I would like to encourage them. I thank my hon. Friend for his comment.
	The bottom line is that we will comply with our legal obligations both for the past and in the future. There has never been any doubt about that. In the past, we have put under one heading the costs of staying away from our main home. Under the publication scheme, that global figure will be broken down to mortgage interest, rent, hotel costs, council tax and so on. That will provide a clearer picture for our constituents.
	The fourth motion would turn the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances, which has existed since July 2001, into a formal Committee of the House. We are grateful to the APMA for the work that it has done and it is time that it should be formally constituted. That would put the Committee on the same footing as a Select Committee in that it would be able to call for evidence and publish its own reports. Nothing in the motion—or in any other motion today—prejudices the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or the very important work of the Committee for Standards and Privileges.
	As the Prime Minister, and then I, told the House yesterday, we have attempted to reach agreement on all these issues. We introduced a statutory instrument which would mean that these resolutions replaced the FOI provisions that apply to the House. The official Opposition said on Tuesday that they do not support the FOI statutory instrument so we have not moved it and I will seek further discussions with the Opposition, as I always do on all matters, and with other hon. Members. But it remains important that we pass these resolutions today. They provide for clearer rules, tougher audit and more transparency. I hope that at least on these resolutions, that is something on which we can all agree. I commend the motions to the House.

Alan Duncan: Of course not, if Members live in London. Perhaps only a second taxi.  [ Laughter. ]
	We now live in a world in which, if we receive such an allowance, we must accept that we have to account for every detail of any claim made. The origin of the allowances and the changing nature of our job have led to a complete and utter mess. It is only by degrees that we have addressed that mess in sufficient detail—and we have not done so quickly enough.
	It may well be that one day it will be sensible to abolish the second housing allowance and bolt it on to our salaries so that we will have to pay for our own homes— [ Interruption. ] There may be an argument that houses in London are more expensive, so we should all be paid the same, but that is a separate argument. The point is that no one at present—and rightly—would announce what would appear to be a quantum leap in our salary on the back of the amalgamation of an allowance with what we are paid. That is not on the cards at the moment, but we should all accept the origin of and possibly the ultimate solution to the very vexed question of the second home allowance.
	We have to declare, and it is right that we should do so, but on the back of the gradual steps that we have taken we have caused absolute chaos for ourselves, to the point where, unbeknown to any of us, what used to be called the Fees Office, which is now the Department of Resources, had a list of what it was acceptable to spend the money on so that we could check that we were buying a toaster that was not too expensive, or too ridiculous—one that was not gold-plated—and that became known as the John Lewis list. It was an absolute gift to journalists, which has ended up doing us harm but creating a lot of very interesting stories.
	The argument that was then created was for a serious and proper debate about the level of detail that we should be expected to reveal in the lists or receipts that we publish. I am sad to learn that if I were to send the Leader of the House a Valentine's card, the cost would not count as a proper parliamentary expense.

Alan Duncan: The one I would pick might just give it away.
	The other vexed issue accompanying the development of our allowances has been the implementation of freedom of information legislation. We have witnessed a long, slow train crash between what we do and what the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires, which we have been unable so far to resolve. In the eyes of the public, that appears to be a requirement that we have always wanted to escape. The assumption of the Freedom of Information Act is that there should always be disclosure. However, the other side of the disclosure equation is that if such disclosure collides with data protection it may not be necessary. In the Freedom of Information Act, as it applies to this House or to anyone else, there is therefore always a permanent tension between openness and privacy. There are always exceptions in other fields on what is published. We can all accept that when there is a legitimate matter of security and the safety of the individual, and the revelation of certain details that could be taken wrongly and abused by other people, privacy is very important.
	The other side of the equation, which affects us uniquely, is the fact that when it comes to the need to reveal information we are at the top of the scrutiny pyramid. We are elected. We choose that, and through election we become permanently in the public gaze. Even High Court judges are not quite in the same category, nor even permanent secretaries, and certainly not middle-ranking— [ Interruption. ] I shall set the BBC to one side for the moment. Middle-ranking civil servants are certainly never expected to be in the public gaze and they are just that—civil servants. We must accept that we are the people who are most expected to come clean about how we spend the allowances that are granted to us. I think that we have been very slow to accept that that scrutiny is legitimate and that we are in an almost unique category.
	That brings us to the specific question, which can be boiled down to this: receipts or no receipts? How far should the system be allowed to drill down to what we have done, what detail can be insisted on and whether it is fair for all that to be revealed? Should it go down to the last single receipt for the toothbrush that one has bought in the local supermarket?
	The origin of that question, to which the Leader of the House and others have referred, lies in what the Information Commissioner ruled and in subsequent events. The Information Commissioner originally rules that categories of spending would suffice. That was challenged and taken to the Information Tribunal. The tribunal ruled that the House of Commons—that is, us—should be required to reveal what we have spent right down to the level of receipts. Perhaps I am getting the history slightly wrong—I have been in this role only for a couple of days—but my understanding is that the House wanted fewer categories than the number originally proposed, but the High Court upheld the tribunal's decision and said that receipts were required.
	I understand that one of the reasons why the High Court upheld the Information Tribunal and not the commissioner was, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, that there was no apparent adequate regime in place that gave the Information Commissioner enough confidence that even the categories would be adequately compiled. There was insufficient scrutiny behind the scenes in the whole system, so much so that the tribunal said, "In the absence of that, publish the whole lot." That got us to where we were yesterday.
	The House authorities—the Committees and the Leader of the House—thought, "Well, we think that the Information Tribunal and the High Court are going a bit further than is really necessary, and so we will introduce a retrospective amendment to the Freedom of Information Act that will allow us not to have to publish receipts." It is clear from the events of yesterday that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition felt very strongly that we made the law, that we were subject to the law, that the law applied to us and that the High Court had a case that said that that law must be upheld but that suddenly we—the lawmakers—wanted retrospectively as a House to exempt ourselves from the law that we had made. We can all accept that that just was not right. Whatever we want to do in the future, having made our bed we have to lie in it.
	That means that with all the scanning that has taken place, both the first and second times, those receipts will have to be published. From 2005 to 2009, the information will go right down to receipt level. We are looking to the future today, and the question is whether what is before us will suffice and whether it will satisfy the Information Commissioner and those who quite rightly demand freedom of information about us. My view is that we should still be subject to the freedom of information legislation. I shall come in a minute to what that might now mean.
	There is a lot of good sense in the motions—they are a good advance. There are 26 categories, and I have to say that one of them puts me in a slightly awkward position given what the Leader of the House said following the statement a moment ago— [ Interruption. ] Funnily enough, it is about oil. Under the category of utilities are listed electricity and gas. I can only take that as a personal attack, because it misses out oil. It might equally include wood, straw and biomass. I hope that some of the categories, which I know are not meant to be exhaustive, will not be applied in a way that is over-bureaucratic. The heading given is for heating, and the use of utilities for heating should be dealt with sensibly. I am sure that the Committee will consider that point and we will see as we go along whether the categories are adequate. There will need to be a little leeway so that the scheme is practical and so that it works. I hope that the Leader of the House and the House authorities will allow me to heat my constituency home in Rutland with oil.
	There is another good element to the motions that will change the whole climate of freedom of information. Through these motions, the House is properly introducing a thorough regime for audit and assurance. That point is crucial. There will be a full and proper external audit of what we do, carried out, I think, by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Each of us can expect to be fully audited at least once in a full Parliament and, if any habits or things seemed to stick out, I think that an hon. Member would be at risk of being individually scrutinised on another occasion, too. There is also an enhanced assurance scheme in the Department of Resources that can give clear guidance and allows for spot checks and much more rigorous scrutiny than before.
	One little vexed issue remains that can continue to be a bit of a gift to a journalist who wants to write a story: the £25 limit below which we do not need to offer a receipt—but that limit was advised by outside auditors and scrutineers. It is not something that all of us say that we must have because we want to keep a bit of flexibility so that we can keep the cash coming in on the sly. The limit is just a simple matter of efficiency, ensuring that the proper regime that we have put in place does not have a disproportionate cost attached. Basically, the rule now is that more or less everything will need a receipt and be subject to audit, and that hon. Members can claim only for expenses that qualify fully under the allowances that are in place.
	In addition, there is going to be a new Committee on Members' Allowances. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) asked whether that would be much of an improvement, but I repeat that I think that it will be. Because of private, cosy advice offered in secret behind closed doors, the Committee will be akin to a full Select Committee. It will meet and take evidence in public and, because it is a Select Committee, it will be made up of Members of the House, as the Leader of the House said. However, its proceedings will be so clear and transparent that the advice that it is given will also be open, and so the advice that it is likely to give to the House will, with any luck, be well founded, sensible and properly understood. The Committee will advise on what is going on, and on what should go on, in full public view. I think that that is a good step. Furthermore, there is the new Green Book which, as the Leader of the House said, is tighter, simpler and clearer. I think that all hon. Members will want it to be adopted.
	In conclusion, where does all that leave us now? The question remains: receipts or no receipts? That is the question that is still hanging, and it has to do with the level of specificity that must apply.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is very dogged in these matters and very assiduous in the way that he analyses them in such detail. Sometimes in British political life one can do the decent thing and always be taken advantage of. One of the challenges that we face is not to be done down by our sense of decency. We should have the highest standards of openness, but we also need some safeguards to ensure that we are not taken for suckers.
	By making everything available, we must not allow ourselves to be subject to an open season of malicious and vexatious attacks. We have a duty to uphold and sustain the dignity of this place as well as honouring, as we should, our obligation to come clean about how we spend our money. Lying behind the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is an issue that I think will arise: if we are doing all this because we are the guardians of the taxpayer's money, that responsibility will apply equally to the cost that will be incurred by publishing every receipt and investigating every FOI request. That cost was running into millions of pounds, so it may be that people seeking information on a regular basis will have to pay a small charge. That question will have to be explored.

Alan Duncan: Unlike the other, late Alan who used to stand at this Dispatch Box, I am afraid that I did have to buy my own furniture.
	I shall conclude by responding to the questions that various Liberal Democrat Members have asked. As I said, the question remains about the level down to which information will have to be revealed. I do not want to pre-empt today either the judgment from the Information Commissioner or the decisions of the Committee on which I shall sit in future about how what we are putting in place today is likely to be implemented to everyone's satisfaction. The intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East made it clear that the High Court made its decision because no satisfactory regime was in place. That decision will be different if the proposals before us are supported at the end of the debate, and the Information Commissioner might say that going down to the receipt level is disproportionate and unnecessary. He may conclude that the new categories meet the highest imaginable standards compared with any other public body and that they will therefore suffice.
	Whatever the House decides, I hope that we can bring an end to the press having a field day at our expense and thereby diminishing both Parliament and the whole process of democracy. In the past, they have had a good basis for doing that and they have been entitled to point out the worst offences. We need to bring that to an end.
	We need to move on and make this place work better, and to make people realise that this is an honest Parliament. It is probably more honest than any other that I know in the world, and it is here to serve people. People would benefit from respecting it—they may even want to be elected to it—and from appreciating what we all try to do for our constituents. That would enhance our democracy instead of causing it to decay.

David Heath: I begin by saying that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is not in his place at the moment, made a very important point to the Leader of the House in his intervention. The system that we have been working with may have its inadequacies, but all hon. Members who submit a claim sign a certificate to the effect that they have used the money for a purpose that is consistent with their parliamentary duties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I cannot understand how people can get away with using that money for a purpose that is wholly inconsistent with their parliamentary duties. How can it be said that there is something unclear about the certification that we all sign each time we claim? It is unfortunate that the impression has been given that, somehow, it was sufficiently unclear that it was all right to have blatantly fiddled the system, as, sadly, one or two Members appear to have done.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he will know—because he used to be my sparring partner on these issues for many years—how often I have said that we need better and essentially external audit of what is done in the House. I am therefore very pleased that that is part of the proposals today.
	The Leader of the House suggested in the earlier exchanges that we do not want to get into a Dutch auction between the parties on who is holier than thou, and I absolutely agree. It is important that we as a House come together on the issue and find a way forward that does not try to divide us into different camps, nor enable any portion of the House to claim a specific sanctimony all its own, as that is unhelpful to the process of finding the right solution.
	I want to spend a little time on the Freedom of Information Act statutory instrument. It has been withdrawn, but it is extremely cogent to the proposed scheme of publication. I wholly welcome the withdrawal of the statutory instrument. I always intended to oppose it, as I have always opposed such matters. The one party political point that I want to make—I hope it is not at the expense of others—is simply that I was very saddened by the spin coming from those who speak for No. 10, who suggested yesterday that the statutory instrument was based on what was called an all-party agreement. It was categorically not based on an all-party agreement. The Liberal Democrats were neither asked the question, nor did we agree to it. I see the Leader of the House nodding on that point. It is thus wholly incorrect to suggest that we would support such an exemption for Members of Parliament.

David Heath: That moves me neatly on to what I was going to say next. My difficulty with the proposals before us is the relationship between the scheme of publication that has been suggested, which has many admirable qualities, and extant freedom of information requests and decisions of the tribunal and the High Court, which cannot just be wished away; they exist. The tragedy is that if the House had used its brain a little more three or four years ago when the issues started cropping up, and had realised then that the need to respond to the public interest meant having a proper scheme of publication and a proper audit system, I think that would have satisfied the Information Commissioner. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that it would. Then we would not have had many of the discussions that we have had in the past few days. The tragedy is that those who did not want to disclose anything have ended up having to disclose everything because they could not see the way the wind was blowing. I hope that that is a lesson to Members of the House: when the public have a legitimate right to know something, trying to keep it secret beyond the point at which that is tenable is a very bad tactic, quite part from anything else, because the result will not be what they expect it to be.

John Bercow: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between a modestly priced item and an extravagantly priced one, but that has been satisfactorily addressed by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I put it to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that his concern is substantially addressed on page 11 of the revised Green Book, given the proposed 10 per cent. limit as a proportion of the total allowance that can be paid in respect of the type of items that he is describing.

Hugh Bayley: Ten per cent. of the allowance is about £2,000. To say to the public that Members can spend £2,000 without having regularly and routinely to face the discipline of that expenditure being broken down in the figures that the House releases to the public would put us, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) suggested, in a position of doing slightly too little, slightly too late, and leave the public feeling that we were not doing enough to reassure them that our expenditures are made for good parliamentary reasons. That is why I would like the Leader of the House and those who speak for the other parties to reflect on what I have said in their closing remarks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) noted that the new Green Book refers to extravagance. It says:
	"Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."

Hugh Bayley: I am glad to see that it is there. How will the public be reassured that the items are not extravagant or luxurious unless we release the information to them, and do so in a form that is digestible instead of as part of a compendium of 1.2 million receipts, the vast majority of which nobody would express any interest in whatsoever?

Nick Harvey: Is not one of the strengths of the regulatory systems inside Parliament that the burden of proof necessary is not that which an external court would need? The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) say that they do not understand why a prosecution did not take place in the case involved. The answer is perfectly simple—that the standard of proof that would have been required in the criminal court was not obtained, but the standard of proof necessary for the House to come to a very severe conclusion in that case was met.

George Young: Indeed. That is the answer to a question that was raised earlier—why, in a particular case, the police did not prosecute but the House was able to come to a conclusion.
	My Committee has an interest in the broader reputational issues of the House that have been discussed during the debate, and I think that the revised audit proposals can increase public confidence in how taxpayers' money is spent. My view is that the vast majority of colleagues have nothing whatsoever to fear from greater transparency, and it is unfortunate that more recently an impression to the contrary may have been given. As we have just heard, where colleagues do break the rules, the disciplinary consequences can be politically terminal.
	I want to refer to an issue touched on by the Leader of the House—the need to ensure that the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an independent Officer of the House, and the role of the Committee to which he reports are not prejudiced by the dispute resolution procedure proposed in the report. Paragraph 5 of the introduction to the report before the House makes no reference to the role of either body in determining whether expenditure is allowable, and the resolution before the House gives that task to the Committee on Members' Allowances. It could therefore be possible for two Select Committees of this House to come to a different view on whether the rules have been broken. That would not be a good outcome.
	Public confidence in our behaviour has been enhanced over the past 12 years by having an independent parliamentary commissioner whose reports we always publish. I pay tribute to the work of Philip Mawer and John Lyon; indeed, today we publish two of John Lyon's reports. It is important that this strong independent outside element is not bypassed or undermined by the new procedures and that the commissioner retains the discretion to determine whether to investigate and whether there has been a breach of the rules. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for the assurance that she gave on that point.

Gordon Prentice: I do not have any problem with the publication of receipts, but what about the proportionality that my friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned, as in the case of thousands and thousands of receipts from Ryman's? Does my Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) want us routinely to submit receipts from the Members' restaurant or the canteen? Would he insist on every single receipt being handed into the authorities, regardless of the value of the service purchased?

Tony Wright: I apologise to my hon. Friend; I have not yet given enough thought to the newspaper question, but I shall now give it substantial thought. What I do know is the rubric that is to be contained in the instructions to us, which is simple and helpful: that we should not claim for anything about which we are not willing to be subjected to public scrutiny. It is a straightforward principle. If we claim for the right things, we have the answers to any queries that arise—whether about newspapers or anything else. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), although the extended publication scheme is welcome, I am worried that, if we continue to deal in aggregate figures, one could not discover a range of abuses that might exist. Given all that has happened, there is no alternative but to ensure that we put in place and believe in a system that will hound out any possible abuse, and discipline Members to ensure that it works.
	There is an old adage that sunshine is the best disinfectant. We have not had sunshine and we have therefore needed disinfectant. People who believe that a little bit of sunshine now means that we can keep out much other scrutiny are wholly misguided. We live in a regime under which people can see in detail on what we spend money. There is no rowing back from that. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend had simply said on behalf of the Government that that is the world in which we live and that we must make the best of it.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. The service that our staff provide enables us to deal with, for example, the more than 3,000 constituency cases that the Leader of the House mentioned. That figure is not unusual for most Members. From speaking to Members who have been here much longer than me, I know that the volume of correspondence has increased hugely in recent years. Although e-mail is an excellent way in which people can communicate with their Members of Parliament, making communication easier means that the volume of correspondence increases and more support is required to handle the inquiries.
	Many of our constituents mistakenly believe that the money comes directly to us and is paid into bank accounts, from which we pay out. We know that money comes directly to us for certain allowances, for example, the allowance for rent, only when we have submitted the claim and the receipt to show that we have already paid. As a new Member, with student debts, I suddenly had to pay deposits and found that cash flow was a bit of a problem in the first two weeks, so that is another misconception.
	References to second homes can conjure up an image of a gravy train and of holiday homes, but the reality is that we get out of this place at 10 o'clock or 10.30 on Monday and Tuesday evenings and just about manage to get back to somewhere in London to put our head down and try to get a decent night's sleep before we come back here early the next morning. It is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle.
	I absolutely love doing the job of Member of Parliament; it is a great privilege for me to represent the people of East Dunbartonshire. However, all of us in the House know that the job is far from easy. Spending half the week away from loved ones places strains on family life, and the huge amount of travelling takes its toll, resulting in tiredness and exhaustion. I want to make it very clear that, without the support of my excellent staff, without being able to travel regularly between my constituency in Scotland and Westminster, without having somewhere to stay when I am down here in London, and without the resources to pay for my office telephone bills, my stationery and my information technology equipment, I would simply be unable to do the job of representing my constituents properly. That case is not often made, but it needs to be made.
	I am in favour of transparency because I believe that, when people are presented with the mundane details of our toner cartridges and our telephone bills, the heat will go out of the issue. In the main, our constituents accept that we need to do our job, and that we need the resources to do it.

Jo Swinson: It was a very good point. At the other end of the spectrum, when I was first elected to the House, I was still able to use my young person's rail card, so my travel bills went up slightly after my first year as a Member of Parliament.
	The hon. Lady has made a good point, and transparency should be our friend. We might not be able to guarantee treatment that is always favourable or entirely fair from the media; I cannot promise that we would get such treatment. However, I believe that our constituents will, by and large, treat us fairly. They, at least, will be in a position to be able to assess the situation, if they can see the travel claims and other expenses of the hon. Lady or any other Member. They know how hard their individual MP works, and they will be able to make their own judgment. This is about ensuring that people have the power to make those judgments. They know, from dealing with our staff, that there is always a well-staffed office—and they might be aware that one MP has higher staff costs than another—and they will be able to see the benefits of that. It will be up to our constituents to judge whether we, as MPs, are spending the taxpayer's money well. Transparency, then, is a good principle for us to adopt.
	We heard earlier about the 26 categories that will now apply and debated whether every receipt should be published, which will also happen under freedom of information legislation. I accept the argument that perhaps if we had had a better publication regime before, we might not have reached the stage of the Information Commissioner's ruling that every receipt has to be published. But we are where we are, and we are now going to publish detailed receipts—1.2 million of them, as we have heard—so I would argue that it makes no sense to stop there. Once we have done this, we should have a system that enables us to do it on a regular basis, so that it is entirely transparent. We know that there will be freedom of information requests anyway, so rather than wait for them to come in, I believe that the House should be proactive and take that step.
	In effect, what is the big deal? Yes, costs are attached, and the Leader of the House gave us a figure of £2 million earlier, but I am willing to bet that the public out there—who may or may not be listening to or watching this debate—would think that it was a price well worth paying for transparency in Parliament and for restoring some trust in our democracy.
	We have had much discussion, some of it rather amusing, about whether what is proposed will be difficult to achieve, with all the redacting and so forth that will be required, but it is really not that complicated. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have both managed to follow such an arrangement for some time. Perhaps our officials could speak to their officials to work out the best, most civilised and reasonable way of proceeding. I quite like the example mentioned earlier of having a standard receipt form into which all the details could be put, perhaps online to save some of our staff's work and departmental resources, ensuring that receipts are tendered for the auditors to look at. There are lots of ways doing that and a streamlined system could be put in place while ensuring that all the information is in the public domain.

Shailesh Vara: May I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon's debate—all those who have made interventions, as well as all those Back Benchers who have made speeches? It is not usual when making a winding-up speech to compliment those who have opened the debate, but with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make an exception to that because both opening speeches were excellent. I give credit to the Leader of the House for not only setting the right tone for the debate, but for the enormously generous time that she gave to all those hon. Members who wished to intervene on her speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) on his maiden speech in his new role as shadow Leader of the House. He, too, contributed enormously to making sure that the right tone was set.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who is not in the Chamber, spoke of possible dark forces disrupting the debate, but I am pleased to say that as a result of the tone set by the two opening speeches, if there were any dark forces, they certainly did not see any light. We as an institution are all the better for it, as the public watch us while we debate this important issue.
	This is a crucial debate that strikes at the very heart of trust and confidence in Members of Parliament. It has generated a fair amount of heat, both inside and outside Parliament. I hope that at the end of it, there will be a fair amount of light—light that leaves no doubt that we understand the public's deep distrust about the way in which we use taxpayers' money, light that makes it absolutely clear that we want greater transparency regarding our costs and allowances, and light that will convey the important message that the motions before us go some way to trying to restore the public confidence that the House so desperately needs, and the confidence that its servants need.
	Let us be clear about one thing, though. Of course it is right that we should claim expenses to carry out our duties as Members of Parliament, and it is important that we should have a staffing allowance—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). We should also be allowed to claim expenses for living away from home, travel and the like. We cannot have a system in which only the wealthy can afford to become Members of Parliament. That would be the consequence if we were not allowed to claim expenses and allowances.
	It is important that we claim those expenses and allowances in a way that is transparent and seen to be transparent. Moreover, the processes that we use must be properly regulated, and must be seen to be properly regulated. That point was referred to by the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made suggestions about the mechanics of disclosure, and I hope that those responsible for implementing the process will take note of what he said.
	We support the proposals to break down Members' expenditure into more categories, providing greater detail for the public and clarity on what Members spend their allowances on. Moreover, we support the new version of the Green Book; the guiding principles, derived from the code of conduct for Members of Parliament, underpin the spirit of the expenses and allowances regime. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred to one of those principles when he spoke of the necessary expenditure principle.
	It is right that the book should be brought more up to date—for example, by ensuring proper reference to "civil partners" alongside the usual reference to "spouses." The public will also be pleased to see the proposals for better auditing and assurance. The two-pronged approach being taken—on the one hand by the National Audit Office, and on the other through internal audit, carried out by the House's auditors in conjunction with a team from PricewaterhouseCoopers—should lead to greater thoroughness in policing how we spend taxpayers' money.
	I accept that some Members have concerns about the financial proportionality of the audit proposals, expressing the view that the cost of carrying out such a detailed scrutiny of expenses is far in excess of possible risks of abuse. It is fair to say that increasing the rigour of the audit regime will mean an increase in costs, but we must not consider that in isolation. We must also consider the need to restore the reputation of the House—a point touched on by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster). With that in mind, I believe that there is proportionality and proper balance as regards costs and the end results.
	The motion proposes that the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances, which meets in private monthly and advises the Speaker and the Members Estimate Committee, be replaced by a new Select Committee on Members' Allowances. That Select Committee, with all the powers that it would have, would certainly help demonstrate to the public the importance that we place on the subject—again, it is a move in the right direction.
	On the other measures put before us, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made a valid point about the possibility of work duplication. If the proposals are passed today, and I hope and expect that they will be, that will need to be looked into. It is always a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend's contributions; his quality and experience only add to the general quality of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) raised two questions, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House takes those on board; I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
	It cannot be right that we expect public bodies, individuals and other organisations to have levels of transparency and openness higher than our own. It cannot be right for there to be one set of rules for the public and another for us, or for us not to make the necessary changes to bring our own standards of audit and transparency into line with 21st-century best practice.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) complimented the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House of Commons, the two main Front-Bench spokesmen, and I would like to compliment the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on his important speech. He raised one issue around which the whole House can unite—if there were no means of meeting our legitimate expenditure from the public purse, only the wealthy could afford to be Members of Parliament. That would be wholly inappropriate.
	That point is brought home to me particularly by the fact that a friend of mine, a member of Rhondda Labour party, has a letter written by William Abraham, Rhondda's first Member of Parliament; he was known as "Mabon". He was a great figure, who sat for many years in the 19th and 20th centuries. The letter is to the trade unions in the Rhondda, thanking them for paying his expenses while he was living in London as their Member of Parliament; it was before Members were even paid. The issue has been around for more than 100 years. It is only because trade unions were prepared to meet the legitimate expenses of the person who had to come from the Rhondda up to London that the area ever had representation at all. The issue that that raises needs to be at the forefront of our minds.
	I will deal first with issues to do with the publication scheme. It is a delight to have back the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He is a more substantial figure, at least physically, than his predecessor, and he can match him word for word. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sorry—I am being somewhat cruel.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be perverse for us to introduce this publication scheme because it would mean that we would end up with two such schemes. He asked, as did the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), about the legal advice. Nothing that we are considering today changes the legal obligations that are on the House authorities as the data holders. It is for them to comply with the legal obligations on them, which are to disclose information down to receipt level—I use the phrase "down to receipt level" precisely; it does not necessarily mean receipts—and they will do that. The publication scheme that we have brought to the House will give the public the information they need in a form they will find useful. It is with that in mind that we proposed it, not as an alternative way of meeting our legal obligations. The publication scheme is different from the publication of redacted receipts. It will provide information in a form that shows, across headings and over the years, information that will be useful to the public. Indeed, many people may find it a more useful way of looking at it than other ways.

Chris Bryant: I do not have that information, I am afraid, and it is a matter for the House authorities. They are the data holders, and they have to progress the process.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) made strong speeches in favour of transparency, and everyone in the House shares their concern to ensure that we have an adequate level of transparency that meets the public need.
	I now come to several matters relating to the new Committee. The membership of the Committee will be a matter for the political parties in the usual way, as is the case for all Committees of the House, and for the Committee of Selection. It is important that we acknowledge that there will be no Government majority on the Committee, which is why it has eight members, putting it virtually in parallel with the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is important, as the Leader of the House said, that we do not bypass the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Nothing that we are saying today bypasses it, or obviates its role.
	It is also important, as several hon. Members have said, that we have a robust audit. Everyone has said that the new system of audit we introduce will be substantially more robust than that of the past. It will be risk-based and it will ensure that wherever there is an element of risk, a proper audit is done so that the public can be assured of value for money. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York—[Hon. Members: "City of York"] Sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—quite a different person. He dresses quite differently.
	My hon. Friend made an important point, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me on this, about the fundamental principles that underlie the claming of all expenses. He read out only one of the fundamental principles in the new Green Book, but the others are important and should be referred to directly:
	"Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed...Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties; claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation; it is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source; Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else; Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes; individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others; the requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services—Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious; claims must be supported by documentary evidence".
	I believe that those are the principles to which the whole House must hold firm.

Julian Lewis: In that area of debate, may I flag up a matter that I thought was extremely unfair to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett)? She put in a claim in relation to her accommodation for something to do with her garden. The claim was turned down, yet the information that she had tried to get it but been refused was released, much to the joy of the press, who proceeded to criticise her for having asked. Surely what should be revealed is the expenses that are granted. It should not be revealed if somebody asks whether they can claim for something, is told that it is not appropriate and says, "Fine, I will let it go". That situation was most unfair to the right hon. Lady.

Chris Bryant: That specific issue is a matter for the House authorities, both as the data holder and as the body that did not pay the original claim. However, the public expect us to provide a clear set of rules that mean that such things are not in doubt.
	Several hon. Members have, in one way or another, asked whether we should be moaning about the situation in which we find ourselves. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) referred to how it often feels unfair to us that certain expenditure is referred to as our expenses, particularly given that the largest figure in our annual expenditure is staffing costs. Perhaps 50 years ago, when an MP might have visited their constituency twice a year, and the band played when they got there and played even louder when they left, they were able to survive without staffing. Today, the understandable expectation is that Members will be able to respond to letters, e-mails and every other form of inquiry very swiftly. I know that all hon. Members try to do that, and we would not be able to do it without our staffing expenditure.
	I remember setting up my office when I was first elected in 2001. Buying desks for my staff was quite an expensive business, and at the end of the year I had to pay a very significant tax bill for that benefit, even though it did not particularly feel like a benefit to me. It felt like a benefit to my staff.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned the fact that journalists might inadvertently, or perhaps advertently, tend to criticise the most diligent Members by attacking those who use their allowances to the full to provide a swift and effective service to their constituents. The hon. Member for Castle Point seemed to suggest that we should invert the list when considering Members' effectiveness, and that the cheapest MPs are the least diligent. I do not know whether anybody would want to go that far, but nearly all MPs now seek to do a job that is entirely different from the one that was done 30 years ago. That is why it is important that we have a completely different structure of Members' allowances and expenditure.
	Every MP and every constituency is completely different, with different competing needs. In my constituency, very few housing-related issues arise because more than 80 per cent. of my constituents live in their own home, but many issues of miners' compensation arise. Other MPs have a completely different pattern of issues coming to them.
	I do not believe that we should moan about the situation that we find ourselves in. As several hon. Members said, it is a great privilege to sit in this House and represent our constituents. Nor, however, should we be ashamed about the expenditure that we wholly legitimately incur.
	When I was elected, there was no transparency about Members' expenditure. There was no audit and there were no minimal rules, and that was in 2001. Indeed, when I rang the Fees Office and asked what to do about my additional costs allowance, I was told to divide it in 12 and submit a form. I chose not to do that but to submit receipts. We have moved forward, and that is vital.
	I believe that we are taking significant additional steps forward: through tougher rules on contracts to ensure that all employees are doing the job that they are meant to do, and on receipts to ensure that people are claiming what they are meant to claim, and through a robust independent audit, introducing the National Audit Office into the running of our finances for the first time and enabling it to do a full-scale audit. We are also providing for far greater transparency through the publication scheme and what the House authorities will do in future.
	Again, I welcome the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton to his new post. We have already heard about the man to man chats between the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, I forgot to mention that. As the chairman of the 1922 committee said, the Green Book states, as the Members Estimate Committee agreed, that appeals should go to the Finance and Services Committee. There is a slight element of uncertainty because the Members Estimate Committee relates to the members' estimate, which includes members' allowances, whereas the Finance and Services Committee has always referred to the administration estimate, which is different. We may want to revert to the subject, but we are not trying to change that today.
	I look forward to many man to man chats, and I hope that all hon. Members will support the package of motions that we are considering.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	(1) That, subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) below, for the purpose of the publication scheme adopted and maintained by the House under section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, such information about payments made to, or on behalf of, hon. Members which is already published routinely in accordance with the scheme shall continue to be published;
	(2) In addition, information relating to Members' expenditure from the beginning of the current Parliament shall be published in relation to each financial year, to the extent that such information is separately identifiable, under the following categories:
	(a) Administrative and Office Expenditure:
	(i) accommodation costs for offices, surgeries, etc;
	(ii) office equipment and supplies;
	(iii) telephones and other telecommunications;
	(iv) professional fees and charges;
	(v) agency and other staff costs;
	(vi) travel costs;
	(vii) utilities;
	(b) Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure:
	(i) mortgage interest;
	(ii) rent;
	(iii) hotel costs;
	(iv) council tax;
	(v) fixtures, fittings and furnishings;
	(vi) subsistence;
	(vii) other household costs, including service charges, utilities, telecommunications, maintenance and repairs;
	(c) Communications Expenditure:
	(i) websites;
	(ii) reports and surveys;
	(iii) delivery charges, postage and stationery;
	(iv) advertising;
	(v) equipment;
	(d) Staffing Expenditure;
	(e) Travel Expenditure in relation to travel by Members:
	(i) car, including third party vehicle rental and mileage;
	(ii) rail;
	(iii) air;
	(iv) other UK and European travel;
	(f) Resettlement Grant;
	(g) Winding-up Expenditure;
	(3) The Committee on Members' Allowances shall keep the categories listed in paragraph (2) above under review and may modify them from time to time as the committee may think necessary or desirable in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances.

Norman Baker: Well, someone in No. 10 had a sense of humour at that time.
	The issue of openness is crucial for democracy. We touched on it in the previous debate about MPs' expenses. After all my years in politics, both nationally and in local councils, my strong view is that being open and accountable for our actions is not only a requirement for all of us; it also leads to better government. It is in the interests of the ruling party or parties for there to be openness. Sometimes, it does not seem that way, but in the medium to long term, that is undoubtedly the case.
	I am sorry to say that, over the past 11 years, there has been some slippage in that openness, accountability and willingness to answer questions frankly. I suspect that that is not unusual in a Government. The longer they are in power, the more they feel responsible for themselves and the more they feel an obligation to hide things. It is perhaps a human reaction, but it is also a wrong reaction, because once they hide something, they then have to hide the fact that they have hidden it, and there begins a vicious circle that can end up with a Government becoming defensive and not releasing information that should properly in the public domain, even though they had started out in a different vein. As the Minister will know, some of the most damaging stories about a Government, of whatever colour, relate not to what has been concealed but to the fact that it has been concealed. I suggest to him, in the abstract, that being open is in the interests of the Government as well as of the public and of the country.
	Unfortunately, we are seeing a trend, in that questions that would previously have been answered are no longer being answered. In about 1998, I asked the former Department of Transport—or perhaps it was the Department of Energy, in those days—about the carriage of radioactive material by air. I asked how many flights carried radioactive material, and I was given a specific figure. When I asked that question again recently, I was told that those figures were not collected. I cannot believe that in the past 10 years, the Government have decided not to collect those figures, but that is what I was told.
	The answers to questions can be misleading. A Plaid Cymru Member in the previous Parliament asked how much nuclear waste was carried by air, and he was told that none was carried in that way. When he mentioned that to me, expressing his surprise, I told him that I happened to know the trick: he needed to ask about spent nuclear fuel. If he had asked about that, he would have had a rather different answer. It was quite clear that he was asking that question for the purpose of determining the safety and environmental implications of carrying such materials by air. The answer that he was given might have been technically correct, but it was totally misleading. I do not believe that that is a proper way to proceed.
	Back in 24 April 1998 and on this very spot, I held an Adjournment debate entitled "The Prime Minister's Press Office". It was a Friday afternoon—I remember it very well, because the House was empty and the Press Gallery was full—and it was about the activities of Mr. Alastair Campbell. I suggest to the Minister, with all due humility, that that debate—what I said as well as what was said in response on behalf of the Government—makes quite interesting reading today. I said on that occasion that just because the Government have levers available to pull, and just because they have people who are very good at pulling levers—as they did that year with Alastair Campbell; he was exceptionally good at his job, whatever one thinks of him—it did not mean that it was in the interests of the country to pull that lever as far as it would go. Neither was it in the interests of the Government to do so. I said that the Government have to exercise some self-restraint and sometimes have to accept that information needs to be released, even though it is not in the short-term interests of the Government to do so. That is part of the democratic system. If we move away from that, we will be in some difficulty. There are examples, I am afraid, where we have moved away from that, although there are also examples of good practice to set against it.
	The principles of freedom of information, which the Minister and his party accepted in passing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, include the public's having a right to information about the activities of public bodies, most notably the Government and their agencies, along with local councils and other such bodies. That was a sea change brought in by the Government, which I very much welcome. By definition, the Government also accept that material that the public had a right to should be released, irrespective of whether the Government wanted it to be kept secret, if the reasons for doing so were not ones specifically set out in the 2000 Act relating to matters of national security and so forth. In other words, the Government accepted the principle that material would be released as a right, even if it were harmful to the Government's own political interests. That was a very brave and correct thing to do. However, it does not seem to me that the principle in that Act has been followed through in the practices of all Ministers when they answer parliamentary questions.
	I would be pleased if the Minister was kind enough to answer one particular question, which is whether for legal purposes Ministers regard parliamentary questions as effectively freedom of information requests. In other words, do they make the same assessment of whether information should be released as they would have if the information had been requested in a freedom of information request? Alternatively, are MPs entitled to more information in their parliamentary answers than such requests would generate—or, indeed, less? What is the exact relationship between a freedom of information request and a parliamentary answer?
	As I said, there are examples of good practice as well as bad practice in government. I am not attempting to smear every Government with the same brush. I refer the Minister back to a question I asked in 2001 that received considerable coverage at the time. I asked the Home Secretary
	"what representations he has received on the applications by G. P. Hinduja and S. P. Hinduja for British citizenship"—[ Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 351W.]
	from the Member representing Hartlepool at the time—now Lord Mandelson. That question was answered properly and in full by the Home Office Minister at the time—under instructions, it turned out, from the present Justice Secretary. At least partly as a consequence, the then Member for Hartlepool had to resign his ministerial office. If I asked such a question in similar circumstances today, I just wonder whether the answer would be as full and open as that one was, or whether some formula would be applied to prevent the information—legitimately asked for and provided on that occasion—from coming out. I hope the Minister can assure me that it would, but I am going on to explain why I believe such answers are not being provided these days in the same way.
	I said that there is a patchwork of answers across government in terms of ministerial responses. That is quite true. Let me say that the present Justice Secretary, for example, has always been absolutely straight down the line, whatever Department he is representing, about answering parliamentary questions, irrespective of whether they are detrimental in the short term to the Government. He regards it as his duty to provide answers to parliamentary questions, and I pay tribute to him for it.
	Some Departments regularly produce proper information. During my time in the House I have found that the Ministry of Defence, for example, has almost invariably provided proper answers to parliamentary questions, and, on the occasions when it has not done so, has correctly stated why the answers cannot be provided in the form that the Member has requested. I consider it a proper way of dealing with things to explain why answers cannot be provided, if that is the case—for reasons of commercial confidentiality, for instance, or because an answer might threaten relations with another country. There are legitimate reasons why answers sometimes cannot be given and, as I have said, the Ministry of Defence generally either answers questions in full or gives the responses that I have described. So there is good practice in Government but, I am sorry to say, there is also bad practice and that, unfortunately, is the nub of the issue.
	The worst practice in Government, I am afraid, relates to the Prime Minister, and to the answers that he signs off to parliamentary written questions addressed to him. I should like to think that the Prime Minister was not personally responsible. I should like to think that it was a matter for the spotty apparatchiks who occupy the back of No. 10 and draft the answers for him.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes some relevant points, and I am grateful to him for adding colour to the case I am making. It should be added, however, that although we may now have the previous answer enclosed, it sometimes bears no relation to the question.
	Let me give the Deputy Leader of the House a couple of examples. They are by no means the most important examples, but they are typical of the problem. I asked the Prime Minister on what date he last travelled by rail on official business. I do not think I have to justify my questions—I am entitled to ask questions if I wish to do so—but the reason I asked that question was that I speak for my party on transport matters. The Government have made a virtue of their climate change activities and have rightly introduced a Bill to tackle climate change, and I wished to discover whether Ministers were adhering to their statements in their personal behaviour. It was not an unreasonable inquiry, therefore, and, in fact, I asked every Minister that question. Of 22 Departments, including the Prime Minister's office, who were asked that question, 18 of them have given me a precise date on which the Minister last used a train—and most of them travelled by train quite recently, so this is a good news story for the Government as most of them at least are helping to stick to their climate change targets by trying to use the train wherever possible. I am, therefore, happy to put out something positive about the Government on this occasion, because that is what my questions produced. Two Ministers have not yet responded—they have given holdings answers—and two have refused to give the information. Who are they? They are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	What did the Prime Minister say? He could have given a simple, short answer by actually saying when he last travelled by train: "12 December 2007" or whenever it was. Instead, he said this:
	"I travel, making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements, including by rail. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 10 of the 'Ministerial Code', and the accompanying guidance document, 'Travel by Ministers'."—[ Official Report, 31 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 550W.]
	Why did he not answer the question?
	I raised another issue in the light of activities before the parliamentary recess in July. Unfortunately, by releasing a huge number of statements on the last day before the recess—as, sadly, has become traditional—the Prime Minister was breaking the ministerial code, as it explicitly states that a large number of statements should not be released on the last day before the recess. I can give the Deputy Leader of the House chapter and verse for that if he wishes.

Norman Baker: From memory, I think there were about 30, but certainly a huge number of written ministerial statements were issued in July on the last day before the House broke up. I therefore asked the Prime Minister
	"what steps he took to ensure that his release of written ministerial statements on 22 July 2008 did not constitute a breach of section 9.3 of the Ministerial Code; and if he will make a statement on the application of the code to written ministerial statements issued on that date."
	What did the Prime Minister say in reply? He said:
	"The information was published when it was ready."—[ Official Report, 10 September 2008; Vol. 479, c. 1806W.]
	Are we being asked to believe that by happy coincidence all these statements came to fruition on this one particular date? Had they been ready a day later, presumably we would not have had them, but it seems that, happily and coincidentally, they were all ready on the last parliamentary day before the summer recess. I do not think that is the case. I have asked the Prime Minister subsequent questions to pursue that, but I have received no satisfactory answers.
	We must also consider the matter to which I referred tangentially in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis): the practice of being referred to a previous answer. When we receive answers of that type, we think that when we take a stroll back through  Hansard the information that we want will be there—unfortunately, we find that it is not there.
	I asked the Prime Minister
	"on what date he last met Tony Blair."—[ Official Report, 13 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 232W.]
	I do not have to justify the questions that I ask in this House, but as the Deputy Leader of the House may wish to know why I asked that perfectly legitimate question, let me say that I did so because Tony Blair apparently plays a leading role in sorting out the middle east but seemed rather invisible in that role. In order to understand how this country and this Government were approaching the middle east crisis, it was important to know what relationship there was between the Prime Minister and his predecessor. It has not always been a very good relationship, by all accounts, so I wanted to elucidate whether that relationship was affecting British relations and policy in the middle east.
	I was referred back to a previous question of mine and, therefore, to the previous answer. I shall not bother reading out the previous question, but the previous answer I had received was as follows:
	"Information on official and charity receptions held at Downing street will be published in the usual way following the end of the financial year."—[ Official Report, 15 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 819W.]
	I did not ask about official and charity receptions; I asked the Prime Minister when he last met Tony Blair, so why will the Prime Minister not answer the question?
	When an hon. Member calls the Prime Minister, they receive the final formula, which tries to shut down the exchange—"I have nothing further to add." I asked the Prime Minister
	"if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is a parliamentary debate before any decision is taken on whether to allow the US Administration to use Diego Garcia in any planned strikes against Iran."
	I hope that hon. Members accept that that was a legitimate train of inquiry. The Prime Minister could have said that the Government had no plans to allow the US to use Diego Garcia, or he could have said that there would be a parliamentary debate or that there would not be a parliamentary debate. All those would have been legitimate answers.
	What did the Prime Minister say? He said:
	"We are fully committed to a negotiated solution and are working to ensure that this difficult issue will be resolved through diplomacy. The Government always ensure that any use of their bases is in accordance with international law."—[ Official Report, 19 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 577W.]
	I am very pleased about that. That is a reasonable statement of the Government's policy, but it does not answer the question that I asked. I therefore asked him
	"for what reasons he did not state whether he would ensure a Parliamentary debate before any decision is taken on the use of Diego Garcia by the US Administration.
	He replied:
	"I have nothing further to add"—[ Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 591W.]
	That was a second opportunity to answer the question, but he refused to take it.
	There are lots of other examples that I could cite, but I will not trouble the patience of the Deputy Leader of the House by reading out every question to which an inadequate answer has been given. Reading out the inadequate answers would take a great deal of time. I am sorry to say that reading out the adequate answers could be done rather more quickly, although I am not going to do that either. Perhaps he ought to think about the consequences of poor answering practices for when he is in opposition, as his party will be at some point, whether after the next election or at some other future point. He may be happy to establish a rule whereby proper parliamentary questions are not given proper parliamentary answers, but that will set a rather dangerous precedent for him for when he is in opposition. He may find out at that point that being smart in government is not so smart when he faces that tactic in opposition, so it is in his interests to reform this practice.
	It is not clever or smart to refuse parliamentarians proper answers to legitimate questions asked in this House. Mr. Speaker has regularly made it clear that he expects proper answers to be given. I know that he has no control over the content of answers, but he has indicated the proper role of Members of Parliament in asking questions; indeed, he has facilitated this debate.
	I hope that the Minister accepts that we have a right to ask questions, and to have them answered, even if the answers are embarrassing to the Government or cause them political difficulties. That is not the judgment that should be made, but it is made, not in all Departments but in No. 10. The judgment that should be made is whether the information requested can be released without compromising our security, causing problems with commercial confidentiality, incurring disproportionate cost or causing problems with allies. Those are legitimate reasons for not answering questions, and they should form the test. Unfortunately, the test is increasingly whether a question will cause political embarrassment, which is a misuse of power. I hope that the Minister will do his best to recognise that the issue is serious. If he does not want to admit that today, I hope that he will consider it and try to ensure that answers to parliamentary questions are rather better than they have been recently.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate and on the assiduity with which he asks questions.
	I wholeheartedly agree that openness is good, and not just for the Opposition. I come to this debate not worrying about whether we shall be in opposition, but as someone who believes that openness is good for government. The same principles apply whether one is on the Opposition Benches or is a Government Back Bencher. I believe that our Parliament has more robust means for ensuring that than almost any other legislature that I know. We have oral questions, which are unpredictable, particularly with the innovation of topical questions, and that has applied to the Prime Minister ever since we have had Prime Minister's questions, which have been open and effectively topical questions. Our system is not followed in many other countries in Europe or other common law countries, where there is a much inferior system of parliamentary questions. I have sometimes been galled to see other parliamentary systems where speeches in debates do not have to be delivered for them to appear in the written record. Speakers may send them in by e-mail if they were not called, and there is no means of intervening to ask the thrusting question that might make a dramatic difference to the debate.
	We have a strict system of written questions, both ordinary and named day written questions. Although we do not manage to answer every named day written question on the right day, every Department does so with the vast majority of those questions, and the vast majority of ordinary written questions are answered within a week. That is so different from most other legislatures in the world that we should be proud of it. We also have a strict regime for correspondence from the public to Ministers, and from Members of this House and of the other place.
	We have a robust system but, as the hon. Gentleman says, we must ensure that it works. That is why the Cabinet Office ensures that the ministerial code, to which he referred, is clear. It states that
	"it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister."
	It continues:
	"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000".
	That is precisely the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the end of his speech, and I think we wholeheartedly agree thus far. In addition, the House has always believed that it is contempt of the privilege of Parliament not to be honest in dealings with the House.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he has asked 23 parliamentary questions—I am not sure whether they were named day or ordinary written questions—in the past year to the Prime Minister, and I know that he has asked questions elsewhere. One of his complaints—he did not make it in this way, but this is how I would have made it—is that sometimes the Prime Minister's answers have been a little abrupt. On one occasion, the hon. Gentleman received a simple "Yes" in answer, and on another, the answer was more succinct than he might have liked—although, on my reading, it did answer the precise question that he had asked.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) also referred to the practice—adopted not only by the Prime Minister, but by other Ministers—of referring Members to previous answers. The Leader of the House has made it clear that we do not think that that is an appropriate way to answer a question. It may be acceptable if the reply would have to be excessively lengthy, because the previous answer had been lengthy; if the previous answer had been recent, and so was readily available; and if a copy of the original answer was provided to the hon. Member asking the question. However, by far the best practice is to provide the full answer again, even if that means saying, "As I said in my answer on such and such a date", and then repeating that answer. That is what we are striving to achieve in every Department and I do not see why we should make any distinctions.
	The hon. Member for Lewes says that many questions are not answered satisfactorily. He said that he had asked the Prime Minister specifically about when he had met Tony Blair, but the question that the hon. Gentleman asked on 15 October 2007 was:
	"To ask the Prime Minister (1) which  (a) hon. Members,  (b) former hon. Members and  (c) Peers who are not members of the Labour Party he has invited to Downing Street since becoming Prime Minister...(2) if he will publish a list of all those he has invited to Downing Street since becoming Prime Minister."
	To which question the Prime Minister replied:
	"Information on official and charity receptions held at Downing street will be published in the usual way following the end of the financial year."—[ Official Report, 15 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 819W.]
	That is a legitimate answer, because that information is published on a regular basis and it makes sense to have it all in one regular publication, rather than to respond to individual requests.

Chris Bryant: Indeed. I do not want to clamp down too heavily on that, but it is an abuse of the systems of the House. Any question that is tabled in the name of an hon. Member should have been tabled by an hon. Member. The e-tabling system is there to facilitate hon. Members, not to enable their staff to do their job for them. That is an important principle.
	The Procedure Committee has been carrying out an inquiry and will eventually report on the whole question of written parliamentary questions. I am keen to try to ensure that wherever possible we abide as strictly as all hon. Members would want with the ministerial code and with the spirit and letter of the rules of this House. Sometimes we fall short, either because Ministers have been away, which has meant that an answer has not been provided as swiftly as it might have been, or because they have glanced rather cursorily at the answer and it has not been as full as it might or indeed should have been. The requirement is that an answer should be truthful, and that does not mean just a partial truth. It means the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
	The hon. Gentleman raised two other points on which I want to comment. The first was the issue of written ministerial statements and the fact that there were a large number in July. He referred to the point I made from a sedentary position, which was that there were many fewer. I was actually referring to the Christmas recess, when there were many fewer because I specifically wrote to Ministers to try to ensure that we did not have a large number of written ministerial statements on the last day.
	There is always a double bind for Ministers. If they do not produce something by the recess, no statement is made to the House at all until the end of the recess. That is a large gap. At the same time, to provide a written ministerial statement at the last minute—particularly if it is of hefty substance—means that Members do not have an opportunity to have a come-back. One thing that we have done that I think is right is to make it possible for Members to table questions during recesses, and especially over the summer months. We have also put in place a system for the answering of named day questions during the recess as well—something that was sadly lacking for many years.
	Incidentally, I can tell the House that I had been hoping to get the 4.45 pm train from London to Cardiff this afternoon. The one at 4.15 pm would have been better, as that costs the taxpayer only £166 as opposed to £266.

Chris Bryant: It is first class, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
	The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether freedom of information inquiries and ministerial answers are connected. I am gazing wistfully towards my private office staff for the answer to that, and am afraid that I shall have to write to him with the answer, although I note that the ministerial code refers specifically to the Freedom of Information Act.
	I turn now to the disproportionate costs threshold, which currently stands at £750. There is pretty clear guidance from the Cabinet Office on this matter and it makes it clear that, where information is refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost, there should be a presumption that any requested information that is readily available should be provided. Therefore, although it may be impossible to provide a full answer without incurring disproportionate costs, any elements of the question that can be answered should be answered.
	The disproportionate cost threshold is calculated to be eight times the average marginal cost of answering written parliamentary questions. The marginal cost is the direct cost of the time spent by civil servants preparing the answer for a written parliamentary question or producing the necessary facts and figures. It excludes the standing costs of parliamentary branches and Ministers' offices and the fixed cost of staff accommodation. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes is fully enlightened by that paragraph, because I am not sure that I am.
	I have just been handed a response to the question about the connection between freedom of information legislation and ministerial answers. However, I am unwilling to risk reading out something that I do not fully understand twice in one speech, so I shall confine myself to replying to the hon. Member for Lewes by mail. If he is not satisfied with my answer, I have no doubt that he will table a written parliamentary question.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.